Emergency custody papers filed by mother of JI's son 11/14/11

[Karmaa]

I think this mother is going to be darned if she does and darned if she doesn't. All I can say if one of my children were living in a home where another was abducted, I would be screaming from any roof top I could find that I want my child OUT of that house.

The stats work in her favor that the baby has most likely fallen victim to a family member. There is no reason to ridicule the biological mother.

Natch, we are only going to hear from the criminal defense attorney again and again about this matter. They will continue to be muddy the playing field and news will flow concerning what a wonderful father Jeremy is and how lousy a parent the mother is. Same ole, same ole.

I agree that the mom is going to be darned if she does and darned if she doesn't. Just like DB has been. And I also agree that if it was my child I would be screaming off the rooftops. But RR isn't, for some reason. She has rather leisurely filed court papers to get custody of a son that she has only had a single chance encounter with in 6 years and it somehow doesn't seem all that urgent to her, since she and her attorney can't bother to get to court to address the issues.

I know it was not a particularly important thing, but wouldn't you think that the real mom would be there to make a presence before the person who will be deciding her precious baby's future? And knowing that the media would be there - it would have been a GREAT opportunity to get her story, and her grave concerns out in the public.

We don't know anything really about this mom, and I can't judge her till we do, just like I can't judge DB/JI before we know what the truth is. In either case what little we know is not enough for a good opinion.

But unlike DB/JI, I don't see too many possible explanations for the actions we have seen so far, and I wouldn't say that I am expecting her motivation to be anything heroic, which may be why JI's attorneys want a gag order.

 

[Marshmallow]

how is it so easy to attack and assume such horrible things about the birth mother of this little boy but not be willing to assume anything bad about either Jeremy or Debbie?

 

[Sparklin]

how is it so easy to attack and assume such horrible things about the birth mother of this little boy but not be willing to assume anything bad about either Jeremy or Debbie?

Because Jeremy w/Debbies help, regardless of what people think, have gotten that little boy to this point, apparently healthy and happy. Because regardless of what any of us think, they are a family. Birth mother hasn't exercised her court ordered right to see her birth child. Regardless of what excuses/reasons she could possibly have, if she loved and worried about her child so much why wait SIX years before making any contact, and then only to take him from everyone and everywhere he has known. I have zero sympathy for her. She didn't just make a mistake in the moment and now has to suffer for it. She chose day after day, year after year, not to see her little boy. I don't know if she is a fit mother or not, but as far as this little boy is concerned, I don't think she's a mommy at all. JUST MO

 

[Nixie]

how is it so easy to attack and assume such horrible things about the birth mother of this little boy but not be willing to assume anything bad about either Jeremy or Debbie?

I think if she would have been apart of his life the past 6 years I would understand why she was worried and wanted custody.

 

[Karmaa]

Because Jeremy w/Debbies help, regardless of what people think, have gotten that little boy to this point, apparently healthy and happy. Because regardless of what any of us think, they are a family. Birth mother hasn't exercised her court ordered right to see her birth child. Regardless of what excuses/reasons she could possibly have, if she loved and worried about her child so much why wait SIX years before making any contact, and then only to take him from everyone and everywhere he has known. I have zero sympathy for her. She didn't just make a mistake in the moment and now has to suffer for it. She chose day after day, year after year, not to see her little boy. I don't know if she is a fit mother or not, but as far as this little boy is concerned, I don't think she's a mommy at all. JUST MO

Oh, and adding to your response: I have yet to see anyone who is unwilling to believe that the parents could be involved. Almost everyone who is not actively accusing the parents seem to be on the fence, and willing to believe whatever the truth may be - once we know what evidence there is, and not just a bunch of rumors.

 

[Marshmallow]

Because Jeremy w/Debbies help, regardless of what people think, have gotten that little boy to this point, apparently healthy and happy. Because regardless of what any of us think, they are a family. Birth mother hasn't exercised her court ordered right to see her birth child. Regardless of what excuses/reasons she could possibly have, if she loved and worried about her child so much why wait SIX years before making any contact, and then only to take him from everyone and everywhere he has known. I have zero sympathy for her. She didn't just make a mistake in the moment and now has to suffer for it. She chose day after day, year after year, not to see her little boy. I don't know if she is a fit mother or not, but as far as this little boy is concerned, I don't think she's a mommy at all. JUST MO

I disagree. After fighting for her child and losing to Jeremy, I think that maybe up until now she felt he was in the better place for him to be and she put his best interest first but in light of what has happened, Lisa's going missing while Debbie was allegedly in bed allegedly intoxicated, she now feels that with Jeremy going back to work perhaps Debbie is not the best person for this child to be with. I would not want Debbie to be in charge of any children alone with what she has already stated she is in the habit of doing.

I just cannot judge this mother and attack her but assume Debbie to be an innocent victim of circumstances beyond her control.

 

[cityslick]

how is it so easy to attack and assume such horrible things about the birth mother of this little boy but not be willing to assume anything bad about either Jeremy or Debbie?

I see both going on and I think both are wrong. I only question the mother because it appears like a convienent way to reintroduce herself in her boys life when there wasn't anything 6 years prior to give her the same motivation.

 

[Marshmallow]

I think if she would have been apart of his life the past 6 years I would understand why she was worried and wanted custody.

like I've been told about poor Debbie, we do not know if or what has happened. We only know what the lawyers have chosen to tell us. We do not know if she has tried or not tried, or why or why not. We only know what the legal team for Mr Irwin is saying.

 

[cityslick]

like I've been told about poor Debbie, we do not know if or what has happened. We only know what the lawyers have chosen to tell us. We do not know if she has tried or not tried, or why or why not. We only know what the legal team for Mr Irwin is saying.

She was allowed by the court to have supervised visits. Other than that, there is nothing via the custody agreement that bars her from seeing her son.

Let me give an example. A good friend of mine is the parent of a child who happens to not even live in the same state as him. They have joint custody, but he does not get to see his child very often due to distance and financially. I can assure you that boy knows who his father is. I can assure you he makes sure he contacts that boy via phone on a regular basis and sees him whenever he can, even though he lives very modestly. He is in his son's life.

 

[Nixie]

like I've been told about poor Debbie, we do not know if or what has happened. We only know what the lawyers have chosen to tell us. We do not know if she has tried or not tried, or why or why not. We only know what the legal team for Mr Irwin is saying.

Your right we don't know but why would a mother not have anything to do with her son for 6 years then file custody papers after being visited by the media twice. And we do know that she hasn't seen her son she admitted it to reporters, also they custody papers state she had supervised visitation. I never said poor anyone but that little boy who deserves better then a mom who isn't there but to be a parent of convenience. If we find out shes been fighting for 6 years then I will apologize but in 6 years she should have gotten 2 jobs if she had to, gotten a lawyer and fought for her son. She is no better then any other dead beat parent who doesn't pay child support, doesn't see their kid and has no relationship with them. So what she gave birth any woman can, it takes a loving person to be a mommy. She has missed so many things with her little boy. I respect single parents who raise their kids, its hard on moms and dads. If she were a man I would think the same thing, over 10,000$ behind in support no fighting to see him............I think it will take alot for me to understand that. I personally would rather another family memeber step up and take the boys if they are in danger, someone who has actually been in their lives, who they know, and who loves them!

 

[vlpate]

I agree that the mom is going to be darned if she does and darned if she doesn't. Just like DB has been. And I also agree that if it was my child I would be screaming off the rooftops. But RR isn't, for some reason. She has rather leisurely filed court papers to get custody of a son that she has only had a single chance encounter with in 6 years and it somehow doesn't seem all that urgent to her, since she and her attorney can't bother to get to court to address the issues.

I know it was not a particularly important thing, but wouldn't you think that the real mom would be there to make a presence before the person who will be deciding her precious baby's future? And knowing that the media would be there - it would have been a GREAT opportunity to get her story, and her grave concerns out in the public.

We don't know anything really about this mom, and I can't judge her till we do, just like I can't judge DB/JI before we know what the truth is. In either case what little we know is not enough for a good opinion.

But unlike DB/JI, I don't see too many possible explanations for the actions we have seen so far, and I wouldn't say that I am expecting her motivation to be anything heroic, which may be why JI's attorneys want a gag order.

I'm going to have to throw down the we-know-she-didn't-get-drunk-and-lose-her-infant card.

 

[vlpate]

Because Jeremy w/Debbies help, regardless of what people think, have gotten that little boy to this point, apparently healthy and happy. Because regardless of what any of us think, they are a family. Birth mother hasn't exercised her court ordered right to see her birth child. Regardless of what excuses/reasons she could possibly have, if she loved and worried about her child so much why wait SIX years before making any contact, and then only to take him from everyone and everywhere he has known. I have zero sympathy for her. She didn't just make a mistake in the moment and now has to suffer for it. She chose day after day, year after year, not to see her little boy. I don't know if she is a fit mother or not, but as far as this little boy is concerned, I don't think she's a mommy at all. JUST MO

BEM: ...respectfully .... because Jeremy, w/Deborah's help, lost his baby while she was so drunk she didn't even remember whether or not she checked on her SICK baby from 6:30 pm until she was startled awake at 4:00 am.

I'm sorry, unless there's another missing child out there that belongs to Jeremy, I can't imagine what the bio mom did that could be worse.

 

[vlpate]

But she did have allowed supervised visits, so she wasn't barred from seeing her child as far as the court was concerned.

I still think this is a family/private matter between the two parties. Unfortunately I get the feeling a lot of dirty laundry is going to get aired if it becomes public.

I haven't read every MSM story there is to read about the custody by bio mother and when she did or did not visit - can you help ne out with a shortcut to this information? TIA

 

[cityslick]

From the first page

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...f-one-of-lisa-irwins-half-brothers-speaks-out

 

[askfornina]

From the first page

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...f-one-of-lisa-irwins-half-brothers-speaks-out

here is a comment from her attorney also, just to add.

In September 2005, a Clay County judge awarded Irwin sole custody of his son and ordered that any visitation with Raim had to be supervised and arranged through Irwin.

In a press release Wednesday, Savory wrote that Tacopina’s allegations against Raim were false.

“She knows what life is like to have her baby taken away from her,” Savory wrote. “Mrs. Raim understands how it feels to be gravely prevented from having a relationship with her son.”

Savory did not respond to messages asking whether Raim had sought visitation and was denied. Nevertheless, Raim now wants to be more involved in her son’s life, Savory wrote.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/16/3270248/attorneys-trade-barbs-over-baby


just as a side note here, as i was looking over my links i found this:

http://fox4kc.com/2011/11/28/custody-battle-for-jeremy-irwins-son-moves-forward/

check out the picture on the right. umm...that isn't baby lisa.

 

[yllek]

I think there is good reason to question Debbi's fitness to care for children, and I think there is good reason to question Ms. Raim's motives and desire/fitness to take care of her child. This is why I am happy that the custody hearing was ordered. Both sides will be able to present their cases to an experienced court specializing in child welfare. There will be tough questions for parties on both sides, along with witnesses.

I believe this is quite an obstacle for Tacopina and Picerno. They don't want Debbi and Jeremy answering questions regarding Oct 3rd/4th separately, even with their lawyers present. Whatever the reasons for that, they will likely not want these parents answering those same questions in civil/family court either. It could be a big problem in Jeremy retaining custody of his son if he and/or Debbi choose to take the 5th. The judge will need answers about that night to make an informed ruling. If the judge is unable to get full cooperation to his satisfaction, it will very much hurt Jeremy's custody case, imo.

It will be interesting (for us and LE) to see how this progresses, to say the least. I trust that if the judge is able to get answers and verify that Debbi and/or Jeremy are fit caregivers that the boy will remain in his current home. If the judge is unable to get answers or verfies that Debbi and/or Jeremy are not fit caregivers, the boy will be placed somewhere that is deemed safer (whether that be with Ms. Raim or with someone else).

Lisa is the ultimate victim in all of this. But, she is not the only known victim. There are two little boys who assuredly have had their worlds altered. Wishing both the best...

 

[vlpate]

here is a comment from her attorney also, just to add.



http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/16/3270248/attorneys-trade-barbs-over-baby


just as a side note here, as i was looking over my links i found this:

http://fox4kc.com/2011/11/28/custody-battle-for-jeremy-irwins-son-moves-forward/

check out the picture on the right. umm...that isn't baby lisa.

One article says 2008 and one says 2005 - although I'm pretty sure I saw court documents a while back that state 2005. I also remember the word "ruthless" to describe JI in the custody battle.

That looks like Lisa to me - but not on first glance.

 

[askfornina]

One article says 2008 and one says 2005 - although I'm pretty sure I saw court documents a while back that state 2005. I also remember the word "ruthless" to describe JI in the custody battle.

That looks like Lisa to me - but not on first glance.

http://www.findchristopher.com/

it's Christopher Abeyta. precious babies. they both really do look like average babies, pretty much what i think of when i think "baby." nothing really distinct about them, makes it harder to spot them if they are out there alive Christopher is long past being a baby though *sigh*

 

[Minette]

From Missouri Casenet:

For those interested, you can see the two separate legal actions involving JI & RR on Missouri Casenet: https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do You will need to do a search by name or case number as for some reason the results can't be linked directly.

In 2005, Jeremy sued to determine paternity: 7CV105004561 - JEREMY IRWIN V RASLEEN RAIM
Jeremy received a default judgement.

In 2008, there was an action involving child support payments: 7CV105004561-01 - JEREMY IRWIN V RASLEEN RAIM
RR filed for temporary custody, but neither she nor her attorney appeared in court on that motion so it was dismissed without prejudice.

 

[menmo]

But she did have allowed supervised visits, so she wasn't barred from seeing her child as far as the court was concerned.

I still think this is a family/private matter between the two parties. Unfortunately I get the feeling a lot of dirty laundry is going to get aired if it becomes public.

Just because she was granted visitation does not mean that JI allowed it to happen or he could have made it so uncomfortable for both the child and the other parent that it wasn't working out. I've seen this happen before and I've also seen a great example of alienation of affection. I say great example because this person pulled it off so well that the children actually believe the untruths they've been fed and now are fearful of being with the other parents own parents...their grandparents. Sad reality sometimes.

MOO